Freak out back up project proposal

I know I asked betajames at the beginning of the semester, but I still don't know if a table (with accompanying process notes) wouldn't be better, as I could focus it on a social facet of games: either shared nostalgia amongst gamers, or the Great Console Wars/Death of the Arcade. Wish I had brought that one up a little earlier. Sigh. Maybe it's just because the end of the semester is almost here already, and I am not prepared, so I'm panicking, but I may have bitten off more than I can chew... *sigh* Wish I could just, I don't know, play through a game like Mass Effect and write about the experience, and have that count as a sociological endeavor, but then again I don't think they'll accept a table either. At least the petcha kutcha thing is forcing me to start looking at this now.

Project proposal

I've got a few ideas I'm bouncing around in my head, trying to figure out how best to apply a sociological thought process to video games, most likely specifically single player games. Two games that are options are Mass Effect and Final Fantasy X. Mass Effect may be the best option, as it incorporates choice into a great story that spans races and worlds. However, Final Fantasy X, if I can spoil it a little, looks at how past decisions can have long lasting consequences, and also looks at religion and government interacting. The thing that worries me about FFX is that it is more about a well hidden environmentalism message, and therefore begs comparison to Final Fantasy VII, which may make the project to large to manage effectively. Perhaps there is yet another option that I am not seeing at the moment. If anyone can think of another option, I would appreciate leaving a comment down below here.

My First Rock Band!

LEGO Rock Band. It would be easy to say that if you've played one LEGO or Rock Band game, you've played them all, but that only applies to an extent in this case. This mash-up may look strange on first blush, but makes sense when you think of the social gameplay needed for the best Rock Band sessions. By making the game "kid-friendly" and ,more importantly, taking itself a little less seriously, LEGO Rock Band takes two successful, if somewhat stagnant, franchises and plays off of both series' strengths, but falls into some of the same ruts that both series have created for themselves.

LEGO Rock Band is basically a Rock Band game, with a smaller song library to play through. The Lego part comes in with the graphics, setting, and humor. This combination works pretty well most of the time, although the small song selection leads to some repetition of songs very early in the game. As the music is the core of the game, this makes for a dull experience at times, but new songs are unlocked through a progression of locations and special situations, such as playing as Blur or David Bowie at LEGO locations, like LEGO Speedway or the Stud Farm. Another way of unlocking new songs are through making available "rock power challenges", which remove score boosts, but increase the entertainment value of the video action that takes place behind the scroll of gems, or in this case LEGO bricks. The songs for these challenges are always well matched to the action, whether it is "Ghostbusters" while fighting ghosts at Brickton Manor, or "In Too Deep" while defending a pirate ship from a giant octopus. There are a variety of these challenges, although they all begin to become a little tiresome after a little while. This is actually true of the entire game, partly because many people have already played this game, except with more and more popular songs.

One of the upsides of this game is that, thanks to the LEGO makeover, the band and crowd animations look fluid and appropriate. Since LEGO minifigures are at best rough estimates of the human anatomy, the movements of the performers and crowd are limited but highly polished. The LEGO makeup of the crowd also alleviates concerns about repetition, as the repetition is guaranteed, but instead of pulling you out of the game experience, it actually fits the LEGO universe and helps increase immersion. Another advantage to the LEGO makeover is that it allows the game to have some fun with itself, from the story cut scenes, to the instruments, to the song selections. Unfortunately, the humor only carries the game so far before the gameplay has to pick up the torch, which means that in this case, the music has to be varied, fun to play, and enjoyable to hear multiple times in short order. Almost as if in recognition of the small library, LEGO Rock Band offers a short version of each song, perhaps anticipating how quickly players would tire of the songs available early on in the game.

The song library consists of 45 songs across a variety of genres, which sounds like quite a few, until you start up the game and see you can select from only three or four songs for the first hour or two of gameplay. This, combined with the small library of music, seems to suggest that the game is meant for a much more relaxed play style rather than the intense, focused style of play most other Rock Band/Guitar Hero style of games are subject to. While this isn't to say that this game is worse because of that, it does make the game more difficult to approach with an intense focus. Also, the level of difficulty is a little lower than other games of this type, making this game seem almost like "My First Rock Band". This does make sense in some ways, as the LEGO designation normally means that the game is for the family with younger children, as opposed to college age people, for whom Rock Band seems destined to be marketed to.

In the end, the LEGO license doesn't add much to the Rock Band experience, and unfortunately what it does add is largely negated by the music library being made "kid-friendly". If you're going in looking for an intense, challenging music game, you should probably pass on this one; if you're looking for a way to get your kids into music games, than you could do a lot worse than LEGO Rock Band.

Graphics: 8 out of 10

LEGO graphics can only be done so well or badly, and nice small touches abound in the game.

Sound: 8 out of 10

The music sounds great, but some of the songs start to sound alike, despite the different genres.

Gameplay: 7 out of 10

There's nothing wrong with the gameplay, but the reduction in difficulty is noticeable.

Controls: 10 out of 10

The best thing about the controls is you can use almost any music peripheral to play.

Replayability: 7 out of 10

Replayability will fluctuate depending on if you have a group of friends over and if you like the music.

Overall: 8 out of 10

In the end, the limited music selection hurts for intense, long sessions, but shorter, intermittent sessions are great. Perfect for families that dislike some of the music in Rock Band or Guitar Hero because of content.

Out of left field: my sleep deprived effort (the directors unrated cut)

I have always found it interesting when an argument can be turned back on the originators of it and used to devalue and invalidate itself. Maybe it was all of that interscholastic debate I observed as a child, being the son of a debate and forensics coach. Perhaps it is because I like playing the devil's advocate. Some might even say I enjoy being an ass. Whatever the reason, these instances always fascinate me, and the act of turning them around has made me some friends that I hold dear to this day. So, how about one more for old time's sake? I've read the arguments about how Games are corrupting the youth of America (read world to the people making these arguments, as they tend to be short sighted and self absorbed), turning otherwise constructive young people into mindless killing machines or sex crazed robots or lethargic do-nothings. There are many holes in this argument, but I'll go one by one and refute them, before turning them back upon the originator, and give a response that is likely to be elicited.


I would like to restate the argument, offset so as to be easy to reexamine at leisure:
"Video Games are corrupting the youth of America, turning them into mindless killing machines/ sex crazed robots/ lethargic do-nothings."


Now, the first hole I see is that the argument assumes that video games are a market dominated by the youth, much like Toys. In fact, I have often heard Games referred to as Toys in these arguments. The fact is that Adults are the market demographic, since children often do not have disposable income in the amounts necessary to purchase a game. If youth is meant to include the 17-24 year old demographic, then this becomes a more well targeted, if no more accurate, argument. The classic rebuttal has been to cite the fact that parents are often purchasing the games for children, and therefore skewing the sales to age ratio. This rebuttal must, however, be reminded that the children of yesterday, who grew up with Games, are now the parents of today. Many parents are now purchasing games for their own enjoyment, rather than for their children.

The next avenue of attack on this argument could be the assertion it makes about the children of America being mindless killing machines. While it is useless to cite personal experience in this case to the originators (they wave it away as isolated), the facts are a touch gray at first glance. Violent crime by teenagers and younger has skyrocketed over the last 15-20 years, which coincides with Games' rise as a cultural experience. This correlation is the backbone of the argument, as this spike in violent crime also includes a spike in violent sexual crime among teens and younger. The only problem is that these numbers, when looked at more closely, actually seem to reflect the rise of a different cultural near institution: the emergence of large numbers of single parent households. Since the mid-eighties, single parent households have grown exponentially in number, and large amounts of research suggests that a child from a single parent home, especially in the inner city, is at least four times more likely to be arrested for a violent crime, and twice as likely for that crime to be sexual in nature. During this time there also have been multiple recessions and some major incidents that have become ingrained in our social memory (Columbine, Oklahoma City, 9/11, Katrina, etc.), all of which has combined, according to some social scientists, to create the most emotionally depressed generation since that raised during The Great Depression, except without a nationalistic cause to support. With so many factors potentially affecting these numbers, they cannot be considered valid and must be discounted.

The typical rebuttal made to these invalidations is to cite a study, published in a national Psychology Journal that mentioned it had found a link between violent Games, and increased aggression in those predisposed to aggressive tendencies. These words, however, are normally simplified to "violent games make kids violent", or something along those lines. Having read the article myself, it states unequivocally that the increases seen occur only in children predisposed to violent reactions, and that the increases were close to the same as those subjects watching a action movie or sporting event. The article also showed that most affected were 12-14 year old boys, but that an increase among the same demographic was seen in those playing non-violent Games as well. Further studies have cast doubt on the veracity of this study, denying the originators of the argument the science they crave to reinforce their stance.

The latest version of this argument is to say that Games make the younger generations lethargic, lazy, and grants them a attitude of entitlement. This argument has been based on figures including voting demographics, unemployment figures, education test scores, and public health statistics. By citing that America is becoming fat, dumb, and unemployed, the originators point the finger at the newest working generation, some even suggesting that the "Great Recession" is Generation X and Y's fault. All of the numbers cited, excepting voting demographics, show generalities, all of which can be attributed in at least some part to America's society in general, a culture so fixated on more that people eat twice as much in a meal as some people eat in a day; a culture where having a bigger TV is more important than paying more taxes to have better schools for their children; a culture that encourages parents to use that TV to babysit their children when they're young, and that education system when they're older; a culture that glorifies getting as much as you can for as little as possible. Somehow, I think it more likely that that is the bigger problem, rather than Mario, Halo, GTA, and the host of other games on the market that directly or indirectly glorify violence or sex.

The final nail in the coffin of the argument is the fact that they attribute so much power to what they seem to be insinuating is just a Toy. Sure, when they first came into being, Games were Toys. Complicated Toys, but Toys none the less. However, slowly, they became something more, something powerful enough to "corrupt" according to the originators of the argument. The last three things to garner this kind of discussion, including the use of the word corrupt, are Comics and Rock and Roll, two things many people would consider Art, even if only Pop Art. By using such a powerful word in their argument, the originators already put themselves behind the eight ball, because in the end only three things are able to "corrupt" a person: power, religion, and Art. By acknowledging their ability to corrupt, Video Game's most strident denouncers have actually given them their greatest shield: Not only are they "just a game", they're also "Art".


Yes, I realize I went the wrong way with it, but I like this somehow. Maybe it's because of the time. It normally is in this situation. Anyways, sorry for missing the topic somehow in this block of text, and sorry for you reading through it. Unless you like it. Either way, say something in the comments, please.

MMO's and the virtual crack effect

Wow, what a perfect time for this discussion to come up, seeing as my gf just got me hooked on the MMO she and her friend reviewed last week. I already have a main and alt that both are higher than her or her friend's characters. The fact that I am farming enemies simply to get 1000 kills w/o dying is sad, and I'm afraid I won't last much longer without help. Thank God for school to forcibly pull me out, as not even football could tonight. Anyway, luckily that game does not yet have enough entrenched players to create lots of drama.

Shifting focus, I can see the destructive force that MMO's can be, as I have watched some of my friends put raiding in WOW before their friends, food, sleep, and family. I have personally let my health fall by the wayside in my pursuit of video games and MMO's. Having said all of that, the one article that bugged me the most was the one about Twixt, a character from City of Heroes. The fact that social rules could be placed in such stone in a virtual place, let alone between two groups that are intended in-game to be at war and instead are at peace, is both frightening and encouraging. Frightening because someone threatened another persons' life in a way that causes genuine concern, but encouraging because if heroes and villains can come together in peace, who's to say other groups can be brought together, like pirates and ninjas, or conservatives and liberals. Anonymity is often sited as the biggest problem with the internet, but in some ways, when not abused, it can become an agent of freedom for some to explore ideas about their lives that would not be considered acceptable in real life.

I know this one was short, but I guarantee the next one will be much longer and make up for it.